Question about history of Eucharist views

[Carson Weber]

And through their misunderstanding ... mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

And a non-Christian would say, in turn, that through their misunderstanding, Christians have for centuries worshipped a mere man ("mere" meaning "not God incarnate") as God.

 

[BobRyan]

I am very happy to say that IF Christianity is wrong - and Christ is not God - then we are guilty of worshipping a false God.

I am also content that the RCC is correct in saying that IF non-Catholics are correct - then the RCC is practicing idolatry by worshipping that which is nothing more than a piece of bread.

Indeed - they have a point there.

(See I do sometimes agree with Catholic sources).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His LAST will and testament.

Why would an eternal being have a "last will and testament"? Such a condition cannot exist! There can never be a last will or last testament for an eternal being.

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

That is not what the "CC" has published. That is a Catholic writer, but not the Catholic Church. He seems to be the only person you quote, and he is not the Catholic Church. Please stop equating him as some sort of teaching authority.

God bless,

Grant

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Please stop quoting Catholic sources that show too much about RC teaching.

Fro example when you quote the "Faith Explained" a document WITH the Papal impramature, a document USED in Catholic teaching institutions for decades as a commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post vatican II - a document asserted to be "a STANDARD reference book for every Catholic home and library" - AND it says things that are "too revealing" - we would prefer that you simply not post them - so that opinions and views on this board by some RC members may be accepted "AS IF" they were correct.

I think "I get it".

Thanks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[John Gilmore]

The problem is not when Roman Catholics elevate the host before reception. The problem is when Roman Catholics parade the host about with no intent to receive the blessed Sacrament. The Body and Blood of Christ is present according to His Word not our command.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
The problem is not when Roman Catholics elevate the host before reception. The problem is when Roman Catholics parade the host about with no intent to receive the blessed Sacrament. The Body and Blood of Christ is present according to His Word not our command.

Yes, Perhaps the Christ is present, but in the same form that your faith is present. Just as your faith has no form or dimension, the presence of the Christ has no form or dimension. That kind of makes it a spiritual matter now doesn't it? There is no physical body or blood of Christ Present.

 

[Brother Adam]

Then it would not be an issue over which thousands of disciples would turn back leave his side would it? (speculating)

 

[John Gilmore]

When Jesus tells me "This is my Body that was broken for you," I believe Him. When Jesus tells me, "This is my Blood that was shed for you," I believe Him.

Catholics have the Body and Blood but they don't know what it's for. Protestants know what it's for but they don't have it.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Catholics have the Body and Blood but they don't know what it's for. Protestants know what it's for but they don't have it.

So if I (a Protestant) become Catholic, I've got it made, right?

 

[John Gilmore]

Yes, become a Reformed Catholic, a Lutheran! Keep your belief that we are justified by faith alone, totally redeemed by the Blood of Christ alone, not because of our own merits or the merits of others. But also believe that Christ gives us His true Body and Blood, that we receive by faith, for the remission of sins.

[ July 01, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Yes, become a Reformed Catholic, a Lutheran! Keep your belief that we are justified by faith alone

The thing is, scripture says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24). I've been doing a lot of studying, thinking and praying about this exact issue. I've considered the Lutherans because of their literal view of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. However, James 2:24 keeps coming back to bite me. So I looked at Luther himself, to see how he dealt with this. I was surprised to learn that his response was not to try and make the text say something it didn't (in other words, he realized the implications of what it said), but rather to essentially reject the whole book of James as an "epistle of straw". How do *modern* Lutherans deal with this passage? Why do they disagree with Luther himself about the value and interpretation of the book of James? I'm not asking to argue, I'm really genuinely curious.

 

[Yelsew]

What does Catholic doctrine to with these scriptures that clearly speak of Jesus impending physical absence from the earth?

Luke 22:14. When the time came he took his place at table, and the apostles with him.
15. And he said to them, "I have ardently longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
16. because, I tell you, I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Mark 14:6. But Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why are you upsetting her? What she has done for me is a good work.
7. You have the poor with you always, and you can be kind to them whenever you wish, but you will not always have me.

Luke 24:50. Then he took them out as far as the outskirts of Bethany, and raising his hands he blessed them.
51. Now as he blessed them, he withdrew from them and was carried up to heaven.
52. They worshipped him and then went back to Jerusalem full of joy;
53. and they were continually in the Temple praising God.

BODILY DEPARTED from the Earth! There is nothing of the Christ's physical body left upon the earth for us lowly human's to consume in remembrance of Him. That is why Jesus declared that bread and wine are suitable substitutes in declaring remembrance of him.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Then it would not be an issue over which thousands of disciples would turn back leave his side would it? (speculating)

It seems to me that if someone you respected started telling you to eat his flesh and drink his blood, that you would be repelled by his words too!

 

[John Gilmore]

However, James 2:24 keeps coming back to bite me. So I looked at Luther himself, to see how he dealt with this. I was surprised to learn that his response was not to try and make the text say something it didn't (in other words, he realized the implications of what it said), but rather to essentially reject the whole book of James as an "epistle of straw". How do *modern* Lutherans deal with this passage? Why do they disagree with Luther himself about the value and interpretation of the book of James? I'm not asking to argue, I'm really genuinely curious.

You will not find "epistle of straw" in any of the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church (Actually, the Church of the Augsburg Confession). The Lutheran Church is defined by her confessions not by Luther's writings which are often contradictory.

The Lutheran Confessions have not changed since 1580. So *Modern* Lutherans deal with this passage in James exactly the way the *Ancient* Lutherans did.

James does not contradict Paul. When James says that works justify, he is saying that good works are the necessary fruits that must follow faith or faith is dead and not really faith. This doctrine is repeated in many other passages of scripture and in the Athanasian Creed. For a more detailed discussion, go to Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law, para. 123. and Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, The Righteousness of Faith, para. 42. Follow the link to ( Book of Concord).

[ July 01, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Yelsew]

Found on the web, a Quote extracted from the web page.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ325.HTM

Of special noteworthiness and relevance is Luther's Preface to the New Testament (1522; revised 1545), where he says many astonishing, outrageously presumptuous and foolish things (including the famous "epistle of straw" remark). After expounding generally for a few pages, the alleged restorer of the gospel concludes:

From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best.

. . . John's Gospel is the one, tender, true chief Gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.

(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
When Jesus tells me "This is my Body that was broken for you," I believe Him. When Jesus tells me, "This is my Blood that was shed for you," I believe Him.

Catholics have the Body and Blood but they don't know what it's for. Protestants know what it's for but they don't have it.

The Key Words you used are "I believe Him". Believing is a matter of spirit and is usually evidence of lack of knowledge, for if you have knowledge, you no longer need to believe.

For example, before I made my first journey to New York City, I believed that the Statue of Liberty existed there. But sinse I have been to New York City, and actually climbed to the observation deck of that beautiful lady, I no longer believe she is there, I testify that I know she is there.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Found on the web, a Quote extracted from the web page. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ325.HTM

Of special noteworthiness and relevance is Luther's Preface to the New Testament (1522; revised 1545), where he says many astonishing, outrageously presumptuous and foolish things (including the famous "epistle of straw" remark). After expounding generally for a few pages, the alleged restorer of the gospel concludes:

From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best.

. . . John's Gospel is the one, tender, true chief Gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.

(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)

</font>[/QUOTE]I find it strange for you to be quoting from Dave Armstrongs's web site, a quote from Luther which immediately has me to wonder, by what authority does he, Luther, rank the scriptures as he does?

Am I to presume by your message here that you would take the New Testament books, as given by the only church who had the authority to compile and canonize them, in the face of the total foolishness you see of Luther's attempt to do so?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

[ July 07, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]